MEENA MISRA Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid three appeals stem from the judgment and order dated 31.1.1979 delivered by 1st Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 3 of 1976 having its origin in accident occurred on 9.5.1976 out of the use of motor vehicle No. UTO 49.

(2.) The victim of the accident, namely, Dr. Subhash Misra, was a doctor who had passed his M.B.B.S. examination and was undergoing internship at S.S.L. College, Varanasi and was being paid a stipend of Rs. 350/- per month at the time of accident. He was about 30 years of age at the time of accident. The widow of the deceased, Meena Misra, and the mother, Naurangi Devi, claimed compensation quantified at Rs. 2,00,000/- on the premise that the deceased Dr. Subhash Misra had suffered death because of serious injuries sustained by him in the accident which came about due to goof-up in the bus management. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle, Raj Kumar Gupta, the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 249 of 1979 as well as by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the appellant in F.A.F.O. No. 152 of 1979.

(3.) In the ultimate analysis, the learned Tribunal found it 'established beyond doubt that the death of Dr. Misra took place on account of negligence on the part of the bus management inasmuch as the conductor of the bus was not agile enough to have ensured proper locking of the door and the negligence on his part culminated in the fall of Dr. Misra from the bus leading to his being seriously concussed and his subsequent death'. The Tribunal further held that the claim petition was maintainable at the instance of the widow and the mother of the deceased but at the same time, it also held that so far as the mother was concerned she was, at the time of her son's death, leaning on her husband and naturally, the estates surviving the father of the deceased would be proportionately entailed on her and accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that the mother was not entitled to any compensation as such. As regards the widow, the Tribunal held that the deceased being a youth of 30 years, his longevity could be estimated to last up to 60 years. The Tribunal in the backdrop of the fact that the deceased was being disbursed a stipend of Rs. 350/- per month at the time of the accident, held that it could not be ruled out that even if Dr. Misra was able to save a sum of Rs. 2,000 per annum, the entire saving of his lifetime could not be less than Rs. 60,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation to the widow out of which the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was fastened with the liability to pay Rs. 50,000/- and the owner, Raj Kumar Gupta, Rs. 10,000/-. The costs of litigation were also awarded as against the owner of the vehicle.